THE SECOND INIVRIOVS ••i•ction, against Cardinall Bellarmine → , for false imputation of the Nouatian-heresy. §. VIII.
FROM the fourteenth heresy, wherin Cardinall ← Bellarmine → sheweth the Protestants to participate •ith the Pelagians, as you haue heard, M. Morton star∣••th backe to the sixt,* of participation with the No∣••tians in these words. He (that is ← Bellarmine → ) maketh •rotestāts guilty (saith he) of the heresy of the Nouati∣••s in taking frō the Church all power of reconciliating men vn∣•• God, when as his owne * Authors do note, that the •eresy of the Nouatians was this: videlicet, to deny •ny man, that should sinne after Baptisme, all hope of remission 〈◊〉 sinnes, although he should repent. Yea, and also Bellar∣•ine himselfe in behalfe of Protestants confesseth •lse where, that they require repentance and faith in Chri∣•tians, that they may be iustified, and obtaine remission of sinnes. Nor this only, but there is no difference betweene vs (saith Page 160 he) and Protestants about repentance, as it is a conuersion vnto God,*wi•h detestation of sinne, or as it consisteth in outward sig∣nes of sorrow, weeping, conf•ss•on, and outward chasticements• yea and almost all o• them allow an outward rite of absolution. But the only cōtrouersy betweene vs is, whether Pennance be pro∣perly a Sacrament.
68. And if we stand attent in this place, we shall see no lesse fraudulent dealing then in the former, if not more, to make apperance of contrariety & diffe∣rence betwene Cardinall ← Bellarmine → & other Catholick Authors,* about the heresy of the Nouatians: which though it could be proued, yet doth it not inferre as euery man may see, the principall conclusion o• the question, that there were willfull malice. But all is full of fraud, as you will perceaue, and the reason is not so much, I suppose, for that he delighteth him∣selfe in lying wilfully, as before hath byn touched, as the necessity of his cause, which driueth him to vse the helpe of these shifts, or els to say no∣thing. And this am I forced often to note to the Reader, for that it is lightly a perpetuall obseruati∣on in him.
69. His dri•t then is, if you marke it well, to ar∣gue Cardinall Bellamine of falsity, in that, he affirmeth the Protestants of our dayes to ioyne with the old heretickes the Nouatians,* in taking from the Church all power of reconciling men vnto God, for those are Bellar∣mines words, though curtally rec•ted by M. Morton out of his latin text, as presently you shall see: and to con•radict the Cardinall in this, he cyteth the wordes of Alphonsus de Castro, that saith, that the heresy of the Page 161••uatiās, was to deny any man, who should sinne aft•r Baptisme 〈◊〉 hope of remission of synnes, although he should repent.* But •ow these two are neyther contradictory, nor con∣••ary, if they be well considered. For that the Noua∣•••ns are held to teach both these poynts,* first & prin∣••pally that there was no power left in the Church ••to Priests to reconcile and remit sinnes, to such as ••ll after Baptisme, especially into grieuous sinnes 〈◊〉 testifieth S. Cyprian in a speciall Epistle against No∣••tianus, and S. Ambrose in his booke de Poenitentia, and •thers. And this first part of their errour was contra••ues Ecclesiae, against the keys of the Church, or power •• Priests to remit sinnes: and heerin all authors do ••ree. But the second part of their errour went fur∣••er, as some do gather out of the ancient Fathers, 〈◊〉 testifyeth aSuarez (though b others be of differēt ••inions) which was to deny furthermore besydes ••e Sacramēt, all vertue of Pēnance whatsoeuer, whe∣••er priuate, or Sacramentall, especially in great sin∣•es, as by the words of Alphonsus de Castro heere recited •ay seeme to appeare.
•0. Of these two errors then, the first and not ••e second is ascribed by ← Bellarmine → to the Protestāts, •o witt, that they deny the power of Pennance, as 〈◊〉 is a Sacrament, that is to say, as it conteineth not •nly a priuate detestation of sinne in the synner, but ••so the absolution or remission therof by the Priest 〈◊〉 the publicke Minister of the Church. The other ••rour of denying all vse of priuate repentance, ey∣••er inwardly, or outwardly by sor•ow, sighes, tears •nd the like, is not ascribed to Prot•st•nts by Bellar∣•ine: so as for M. Mortō to bring in the one as contra∣•ictory to the other, that for as much as Alphonsus de Castro saith, that the Nouatians did deny all power of •ēnance, therfore ← Bellarmine → saith not truly that they denyed the Sacramentall vse therof: Or for so much Page [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page 162 as Protestants do not concurre with the Noua•ians in the one, they do not in the other, is a most absu•d kynd of reasoning called by Logitians à dispara•i•, fo• that both may be true, and one excludeth not the o∣ther. For it is most true which Bellarmin saith, that No∣uatianorū error praecipuus erat &c. The principall errour of the Nouatians (which word [principall] importing that they had other errors besids, is craftily cut o• by M. Mort.) was, that there is not power in the Church to recō•le men to God, but only by Baptisme: which last words also bu• only by Baptisme) were by M. Mort. and by the same art shifted ou• of the text, for that they haue relation to the Priests of the Church, to whom it appertayneth by publicke, & ordinary office to baptize: and in this the Protestants are accused by ← Bellarmine → to concur•• with them in denyall of pēnance, as it is a Sacramēt.
71. And togeather with this it may be true, that besides this praecipuus error,* the principall errour, the Nouatians, some, or all denyed the fruit of all kynd of priuate, and particuler pennance, as sorrow, teares, punishment of the body, and th• like, wherin di∣uers Protestants do not agree with them, nor yet are accused therof. Wherby it appeareth that all this counterfait contradiction which M. Morton hath so much laboured to establish heere betweene Bellar∣mine on the one syde, and Castro, Vega, & Maldona•e on the other, commeth to be right nothing at all, for that ← Bellarmine → speaketh expresly of Pennance, as it is a Sacrament, and in that sense only saith, that the Pro∣testants deny it, togeather with the Nouatians, as they do also the vse of Chrisme in the Sacrament of Con∣•irmation, which was an other errour of theirs obie∣cted by ← Bellarmine → to Protestants, as much as the for∣m•r, but wholy dissembled by M. Morton. The other three Authors, as they do not exclude but rather in∣clude the Sacrament of Pennance: yet do they m•ke Page 163•ention of the other part of the Nouatian error, ••at seemed to deny all pennance in generall, whe∣••er Sacramentall or not Sacramentall: and of this ••e not Protestants accused by ← Bellarmine → ,* but expre∣••y rather exempted by the words, which heere M. •orton setteth downe of his. So as for him to play ••on his owne voluntary Equiuocation, and mista∣••ng of the word Pēnance, & Nouatian heresy about the ••me, is toto grosse an illusion. Wherfore if you ••ease, let vs briefly see how many false trickes he ••eth in this place.
•2. The first of all may be, that wheras Cardinall [ 1] ••llarmine to proue that our moderne Protestants do ••mbolize and agree with the old Nouatian heresyes,*••leageth two particuler instances, the one in deny∣••g the power of the Church to remit synnes by ••e Sacrament of pēnance, the other in denying the 〈◊〉 of holy Chrisme in the Sacrament of Confirmatiō, •. Morton hauing nothing to say to the second, reply∣•th only to the first by an Equiuocation as you haue ••ard: and yet if the second only be true, ← Bellarmine → 〈◊〉 iustified in noting the Protestāts of Nouatianisme: •nd therfore to deny the one, & dissemble the other, •ust needs proceed of witting fraud, granting that which is chiefly in controuersy, to wit, that Pro∣•estants do hold in somewhat Nouatianisme.
•3. The second fraud is, for that in reciting Car∣dinall [ 2] Bellarmines charge against Protestants, he cut∣•eth from the latin sentence of ← Bellarmine → , being very small & short in it selfe, both the beginning & end, to wit, Praecipuus error, & post baptismum, as yow haue heard, and that for the causes which now I haue declared.
74. Thirdly he doth bring in guylfully the fore∣said [ 3] testimonyes of Castro, Vega, & Maldonate, as con∣trary to ← Bellarmine → : whereas they speake of an other Page 164 thing, to wit, of pēnance in another sense: & b•syde• this do all expres•y set downe the two errou•s o• the Nouatians, to witt, that they did deny as wel• the Sacrament of Pennāce, as also the priuate vse ther•f as it is a particuler vertue: and that the Protes•an•• of our dayes do concurre with them in the fi•st• though not in the second: and that he could not bu• euidently see and know this, and so did write it against his conscience to deceyue the Reader.
[ 4] 75. Fourthly when M. Morton doth alleadge B•l∣larmine lib. 3. de Iustis. cap. 6. to confesse that Prote∣stants do require repentance in Christians, that they may be iu•tified, he well knew that this was not cō∣trary to that which he had said before in his ac∣cusation lib. 4. de Notis Ecclesiae cap. 9. that Prot•stants did ioyne with the Nouatiās in denying all power of the Church for r•conciling men to God: for he knew that in the former ← Bellarmine → meant of priuate pennance as it is a vertue which euery man may vse of himsel•e, but in the second he meant of the Sa∣crament, and keyes of the Church, which require ab∣solution of the Priest. Heere then was wil•ull and malicious mistaking: and so much the more, for that in the very next wordes heere set downe by him both in English & latin out of Bellarmines first booke de po•nit•ntia cap. 8. the Cardinall doth expresly de∣clare, that only Controuersy betweene Catho∣lickes and Protestants in this matter, is about the sa∣crament of pēnance with absolutiō of the Church, & not the priuate pēnance which euery particuler man may vse of himselfe. So as vnder the cloud of priuate, and sacramentall pēnance he craftily endea∣uoreth to make some shew of a contradictiō, which is none indeed.
[ 5] 76. The fifth falshood is, that M. Morton to make Cardinall ← Bellarmine → contrary to himselfe, or very for∣getfull, Page 165 he alleadging heere his latin wordes, ma∣keth him to say, first, that Protestants require faith & re∣pentance to iustifica•ion, and then presently in another place, Luther reiec•eth pennance, as though Luther were no Prote••ant: wheras this is no contradiction in Cardinall ← Bellarmine → , but in Luther himsel•e, and ano∣to•ious fraud in M. Morton, so pa•pably to d•ceaue his Reader: for that Cardinall Bellarmines wordes are these:*Lutherus lib. de Captiuitate Babylonica, tria tan•um agnoscit Sacramenta, Baptism•m, Poenitentiam & Panem; tamen infra cap. de extrema Vnctione, reij•it Poen•tentiam. Luther in his booke of Babylonicall Captiuity (in the Chapter o• the Eucharist) acknowledgeth only three Sacramēts, Baptis∣me, Pennance, and Bread,* and yet afterward (in the same booke) and in the Chapter of Extreme Vnction he reie∣cteth pēnance. These are the wordes of ← Bellarmine → which M. Morton could not but haue seene and con∣sidered• and yet to make some litle shew of ouersight in ← Bellarmine → , he was content against his cōscience to set downe, Lutherus reijcit Poeni•entiam, and to conceale and dissemble all the rest of the sentence alleadged. When will he be able to produce one of our Au∣thours with so manifest a wilfulnes.
77. Let vs conclude then, that M. Mort. is in a poore case, when he is driuen to all these shifts to seeke out contradictions amongst vs, and to fynd none: and yet let vs heare and marke his Conclusion, and see what māner of contradictiō he frameth against ← Bellarmine → ,* for it will be substantiall (I warrant you) out of these premisses.*The contradiction is this (saith he) to impute vnto Protestants an heresy which taketh away all manner of repentance, and hope o• remission of sinne past: & yet to acknowledg in them a contrary orthodoxall truth, which is to professe necessity of repentance, reconciliation, and remission o• sinnes Wherto I answere, that heere is no contradi∣ction at all, as ← Bellarmine → setteth it downe, both Page 166 these propositions being false in themselues. Fo• first ← Bellarmine → doth not impute vnto Protestants that they do take away all māner of repentance, & hope of remission for sinnes in their sense, but only that they take away and deny the Sacrament o• reconci∣liation by pennance, and absolution of the Church• and secondly Catholicks are so •ar o• from acknow∣ledging an orthodoxall truth in Protestants, about repentance, reconciliatiō, & remission of sinns, that albeit they graunt that Protestāts do in words con∣fesse, and prescribe vnto their followers repentance, faith, newnesse of life, and such other points, vt∣tered and practized after their fashion: yet are they little auaylable, and much lesse orthodoxall, but a priuate manner and forme of their owne, reiected and condemned by the Catholick Church, for that it excludeth the Sacrament, and absolution of the Priest, without which after baptisme, either in voto, or, in re (as Deuines do distinguish) in Christian Religion, no pardon, or hope of re∣mission of synnes, can orthodoxally be concea∣ued. And thus much for this second obiected fal∣sity to ← Bellarmine.